He has a lot of good points, but, he leads with a political trope. This is a sure-fire way to lose most of your audience from the start.
His primary argument is “A is bad”. But then he adds “B is bad, and A is associated with B”. But B is tautologically half the audience, so you lose them, and this becomes support for A. Then there are those that think A is good, but B is bad. Presumably this is the intended audience. You just told them that they are associated with B, so you start out with ideological antagonism instead of making a direct point. You are left with only those that hate both A and B, and of course they will re-tweet, but in this case, it’s still just a bunch of opinions, no personal account or facts that could be used to direct change.
In the bigger picture, cryptocurrency is a confluence of technologies that are not going away. It can be used for almost any ideology, and some of those will be popular and some of those will be violently opposed and some will be made illegal. But, in the long run, the one that will survive, for any specific group, is the one that facilitates the strongest social organization. So ultimately, opinions of ideological taste, one way or another, are irrelevant.
Let me reiterate: I think he has some reasonable points within his opinions, and we should consider them even if we disagree.
I find tweets 3 (centralization) and 4 (predation) to be particularly incisive. This may not be obvious to everybody, because these things are meant to be well-hidden.
Although, I will say, those points massively contradict with the second tweet in ways that are even less obvious, but significantly more enraging if they are well-understood. If you look into all of his complaints, the main offenders are the institutions that have been given some form of legal monopoly to do so.
His primary argument is “A is bad”. But then he adds “B is bad, and A is associated with B”. But B is tautologically half the audience, so you lose them, and this becomes support for A. Then there are those that think A is good, but B is bad. Presumably this is the intended audience. You just told them that they are associated with B, so you start out with ideological antagonism instead of making a direct point. You are left with only those that hate both A and B, and of course they will re-tweet, but in this case, it’s still just a bunch of opinions, no personal account or facts that could be used to direct change.
In the bigger picture, cryptocurrency is a confluence of technologies that are not going away. It can be used for almost any ideology, and some of those will be popular and some of those will be violently opposed and some will be made illegal. But, in the long run, the one that will survive, for any specific group, is the one that facilitates the strongest social organization. So ultimately, opinions of ideological taste, one way or another, are irrelevant.
Let me reiterate: I think he has some reasonable points within his opinions, and we should consider them even if we disagree.